Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. BASANT KANWAR & ANR versus LRS OF CHAINA RAM & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT. BASANT KANWAR & ANR v LRS OF CHAINA RAM & ORS - CMA Case No. 456 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 1003 (21 February 2007)

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.456/2007.

(Smt. Basant Kanwar & Anr. Vs. LRs of Chaina Ram & Ors.)

Date of Order :: 21st February 2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Mr. S.K. Sankhla for

Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellants. ...

This appeal has been submitted by the mother and sister of about 33 years old vehicular accident victim Raj

Mahendra Singh, seeking enhancement over the amount of

Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation by its impugned award dated 20.12.2004 made in their Claim

Case No. 393/1998.

For quantification of compensation, the Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants about the victim being a graduate and earning Rs.5,000/- per month in agriculture and cloth dealings but has found that there was no cogent evidence available in relation to the income of the deceased . The Tribunal has noticed the age of the victim at about 33 years with reference to his date of birth 11.05.1964 stated in his Secondary School Certificate (Ex.13), date of accident being 14.03.1997. The Tribunal has put an estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and for his being an unmarried person, has taken loss of dependency at Rs.1,000/- per month and with reference to the age of the mother, claimant No.1, at 55 years and for the claimant No.2 being married sister and not dependent on the victim, has applied multiplier of 11 to assess pecuniary loss at

Rs.1,32,000/-. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs. 5,000/- to each of the claimants towards non-pecuniary loss, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and further Rs.2,000/- towards property damage and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead-body. Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded to add an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards `future enhancement of income'; and, in this manner, has made total award in the sum of Rs.1,92,000/- and has allowed interest @ 9% per annum from 04.03.1998, the date of filing of the claim application.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the award impugned; this Court is clearly of opinion that the claim for enhancement in this case remains bereft of substance.

True it is that in the first place the Tribunal has proceeded to make calculation of pecuniary loss at

Rs.1,32,000/- taking only one-third of the estimated income of the deceased towards loss of contribution but thereafter, the

Tribunal has proceeded to add an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards so-called future enhancement. In the result, pecuniary loss has been assessed at Rs.1,65,000/-. The deceased was an unmarried person in 33 years of age and when no definite proof of his income has been adduced, the estimate put by the

Tribunal of the income at Rs.3,000/- per month in relation to the incident of the year 1998 could only be said to be more than adequate. The deceased being not in any settled job or employment, enhancement in the name of future prospects was not available as such. Further, in view of his unmarried status and only mother being the dependent, not more than one-half of the estimated income could have been taken towards loss of contribution. Application of multiplier of 11 is also not on the lower side in view of the age of the mother at 55 years. Then, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow

Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses that too stands on higher side. Moreover, the Tribunal has allowed interest @ 9% per annum from 04.03.1998, the date of filing of the claim application.

In the ultimate analysis, the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation admissible in this case so as to call for interference in appeal.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.